G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997.
* while the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA ISABEL
ONGPIN, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO
PEDROSA & CARMEN PEDROSA, in their capacities as founding members of the
People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents.
SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG KONSTITUSYON (DIK),
MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM,
INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), and LABAN NG
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LABAN), petitioners-Intervenors.
Actions; Prohibition; Pleadings and Practice; A petition for prohibition may be filed
with the Supreme Court where the COMELEC fails to act on a motion to dismiss alleging
that such body has no jurisdiction or authority to entertain a particular petition.—It must
be recalled that intervenor Roco filed with the COMELEC a motion to dismiss the Delfin
Petition on the ground that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction or authority to entertain
the petition. The COMELEC made no ruling thereon evidently because after having
heard the arguments of Delfin and the oppositors at the hearing on 12 December 1996,
it required them to submit within five days their memoranda or
oppositions/memoranda. Earlier, or specifically on 6 De-cember 1996, it practically
gave due course to the Delfin Petition by ordering Delfin to cause the publication of the
petition, together with the attached Petition for Initiative, the signature form, and the
notice of hearing; and by setting the case for hearing. The COMELEC’s failure to act on
Roco’s motion to dismiss and its insistence to hold on to the petition rendered ripe and
viable the instant petition under Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Same; A petition for prohibition may be treated also as a special civil
action for certiorari where there are claims that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over a
petition for initiative because said petition is not supported by the required minimum
number of signatures of registered voters, and that the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in refusing to dismiss said petition.—It must also be noted that intervenor
Roco claims that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over the Delfin Petition because the
said petition is not supported by the required minimum number of signatures of
registered voters. LABAN also asserts that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion
in refusing to dismiss the Delfin Petition, which does not contain the required number
of signatures. In light of these claims, the instant case may likewise be treated as a
special civil action for certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Constitutional Law; Initiative; Statutes; The right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed
in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation.—
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche
of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise,
it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.
Same; Same; Same; The system of initiative on the Constitution under Section 2 of
Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory.—The conclusion then is inevitable
that, indeed, the system of initiative on the Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII
of the Constitution is not self-executory. Has Congress “provided” for the
implementation of the exercise of this right? Those who answer the question in the
affirmative, like the private respondents and intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A.
No. 6735. There is, of course, no other better way for Congress to implement the
exercise of the right than through the passage of a statute or legislative act.
Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 6735; Statutory Construction;Under Section 2 of R.A. No.
6735, the people are not accorded the power to “directly propose, enact, approve or reject,
in whole or in part, the Constitution” through the system of initiative—they can only do so
with respect to “laws, ordinances, or resolutions.”—Contrary to the assertion of public
respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on
amendments to the Constitution. The said section reads: SECTION 2. Statement and
Policy.—The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to
directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws,
ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the
requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (Italics
supplied) The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought.
That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to
initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions.
That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier,
initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are
not accorded the power to “directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in
part, the Constitution” through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect
to “laws, ordinances, or resolutions.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide
for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have
provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of
interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws.—
While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and
for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on
the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main
thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If Congress
intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor,
considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values,
the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local laws.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Na-tional Initiative” and
“Local Initiative,” Explained; The Court cannot accept the argument that the initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and
Referendum.—We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum
because it is national in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National Initiative and
Referendum) and Subtitle III (Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves no room for
doubt that the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on
its natureand character. It is “national initiative,” if what is proposed to be adopted or
enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can pass. It is “local initiative” if
what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or resolution which only
the legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays can pass.
Same; Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 6735 delivered a humiliating blow to the system
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip
service.—Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in
providing for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum on national
and local legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally,
to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. There was,
therefore, an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of
initiative. R.A. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip service. The
foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by “empowering” the COMELEC “to promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Delegation of Powers; What has been delegated cannot be
delegated; Exceptions.—The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated
or as expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest. The recognized
exceptions to the rule are as follows: (1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President
under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (2) Delegation of emergency
powers to the President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (3)
Delegation to the people at large; (4) Delegation to local governments; and (5)
Delegation to administrative bodies.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In every case of permissible delegation, there must
be a showing that the delegation itself is valid; Tests of Valid Delegation.—Empowering
the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, to
promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority under
No. 5 above. However, in every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing
that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself,
setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate; and (b) fixes a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
determinable—to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out
its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances
under which the legislative command is to be effected.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy the
requirements in subordinate legislation insofar as initiative to propose amendments to
the Constitution is concerned.—Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements
in subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it
prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, is void.—It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate
rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not
have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC’s power under Section
2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations
referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of
Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized
and which satisfies the “completeness” and the “sufficient standard” tests.
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; A petition for initiative on the Constitution
must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every
legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein—without
the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated.—Under Section
2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for
initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the
required number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered
signatures and that the purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his
drive to gather signatures. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be
deemed validly initiated.
Same; Same; Same; The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative
only after its filing—the petition is the initiatory pleading—and nothing before its filing is
cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc.—The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a
petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading.
Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only
participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1)
to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records and
Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative
district; (3) to assist, through its election regis-trars, in the establishment of signature
stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of
the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the
immediately preceding election.
Same; Same; Same; The COMELEC acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion in dignifying a petition for initiative that does not comply with Constitutional
and statutory requirements.—Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition
under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or
given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission must have known
that the petition does not fall under any of the actions or proceedings under the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it did not
assign to the petition a docket number. Hence, the said petition was merely entered as
UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper,
which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on
12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their
memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Miriam Defensor Santiago and Alexander Padilla for petitioners.
Roco, Bunag, Kapunan & Migallos for movant Raul S. Roco.
Rene V. Sarmiento and R.A.V. Saguisag for Movants DIK & MABINI.
Pete Quirino Quadra for respondents Spouses Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
The heart of this controversy brought to us by way of a petition for prohibition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the right of the people to directly propose amendments
to the Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
1987 Constitution. Undoubtedly, this demands special attention, as this system of
initiative was unknown to the people of this country, except perhaps to a few scholars,
before the drafting of the 1987 Constitution. The 1986 Constitutional Commission itself,
through the original proponent1 and the main sponsor2 of the proposed Article on
Amendments or Revision of the Constitution, characterized this system as
"innovative".3 Indeed it is, for both under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, only two
methods of proposing amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution were
recognized, viz., (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members and (2)
by a constitutional convention.4 For this and the other reasons hereafter discussed, we
resolved to give due course to this petition.
On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public
respondent Commission on Elections (hereafter, COMELEC) a "Petition to Amend the
Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (hereafter,
Delfin Petition)5 wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order
1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country;
2. Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the attached "Petition for
Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of general and local circulation;
3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to
assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the time and on
the dates designated for the purpose.
Delfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding member of the Movement for People's
Initiative,6 a group of citizens desirous to avail of the system intended to institutionalize
people power; that he and the members of the Movement and other volunteers intend
to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution granted
under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution; that the exercise of that power shall be
conducted in proceedings under the control and supervision of the COMELEC; that, as
required in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, signature stations shall be established all
over the country, with the assistance of municipal election registrars, who shall verify
the signatures affixed by individual signatories; that before the Movement and other
volunteers can gather signatures, it is necessary that the time and dates to be
designated for the purpose be first fixed in an order to be issued by the COMELEC; and
that to adequately inform the people of the electoral process involved, it is likewise
necessary that the said order, as well as the Petition on which the signatures shall be
affixed, be published in newspapers of general and local circulation, under the control
and supervision of the COMELEC.
The Delfin Petition further alleged that the provisions sought to be amended are
Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI,7Section 4 of Article VII,8 and Section 8 of Article X9 of the
Constitution. Attached to the petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987
Constitution" 10 embodying the proposed amendments which consist in the deletion
from the aforecited sections of the provisions concerning term limits, and with the
following proposition:
 DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?
According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people,
and after it is signed by at least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters
in the country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
Upon the filing of the Delfin Petition, which was forthwith given the number UND 96-
037 (INITIATIVE), the COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued an Order 11 (a) directing
Delfin "to cause the publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition for
Initiative on the 1987 Constitution (including the proposal, proposed constitutional
amendment, and the signature form), and the notice of hearing in three (3) daily
newspapers of general circulation at his own expense" not later than 9 December 1996;
and (b) setting the case for hearing on 12 December 1996 at 10:00 a.m.
At the hearing of the Delfin Petition on 12 December 1996, the following appeared:
Delfin and Atty. Pete Q. Quadra; representatives of the People's Initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA); intervenor-oppositor Senator Raul S. Roco,
together with his two other lawyers, and representatives of, or counsel for, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon
(DIK), Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(LABAN). 12 Senator Roco, on that same day, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin
Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the
COMELEC.
After hearing their arguments, the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors to file
their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within five days. 13
On 18 December 1996, the petitioners herein — Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago,
Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin — filed this special civil action for
prohibition raising the following arguments:
(1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution
can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed; in fact, Senate Bill No. 1290 entitled An Act Prescribing and Regulating
Constitution Amendments by People's Initiative, which petitioner Senator Santiago
filed on 24 November 1995, is still pending before the Senate Committee on
Constitutional Amendments.
(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely,
initiative on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation. However, it
failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other
modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle
III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law. Former Senator Arturo
Tolentino stressed this deficiency in the law in his privilege speech delivered
before the Senate in 1994: "There is not a single word in that law which can be
considered as implementing [the provision on constitutional initiative]. Such
implementing provisions have been obviously left to a separate law.
(3) Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after publication
in print media. This indicates that the Act covers only laws and not constitutional
amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after
publication.
(4) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, adopted on 16 January 1991 to govern "the
conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on
national and local laws, is ultra vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules and
regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution.
Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
(5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not
to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is,
therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative.
(6) Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative;
neither the COMELEC nor any other government department, agency, or office
has realigned funds for the purpose.
To justify their recourse to us via the special civil action for prohibition, the petitioners
allege that in the event the COMELEC grants the Delfin Petition, the people's initiative
spearheaded by PIRMA would entail expenses to the national treasury for general re-
registration of voters amounting to at least P180 million, not to mention the millions of
additional pesos in expenses which would be incurred in the conduct of the initiative
itself. Hence, the transcendental importance to the public and the nation of the issues
raised demands that this petition for prohibition be settled promptly and definitely,
brushing aside technicalities of procedure and calling for the admission of a taxpayer's
and legislator's suit. 14 Besides, there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
On 19 December 1996, this Court (a) required the respondents to comment on the
petition within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice; and (b) issued a
temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders,
enjoining public respondent COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition, and
private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a signature drive for
people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
On 2 January 1997, private respondents, through Atty Quadra, filed their
Comment 15 on the petition. They argue therein that:
1. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "IT WOULD ENTAIL EXPENSES TO THE NATIONAL
TREASURY FOR GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AMOUNTING TO AT LEAST
PESOS: ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION (P180,000,000.00)" IF THE "COMELEC
GRANTS THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT DELFIN BEFORE THE COMELEC.
2. NOT A SINGLE CENTAVO WOULD BE SPENT BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
IF THE COMELEC GRANTS THE PETITION OF RESPONDENT DELFIN. ALL
EXPENSES IN THE SIGNATURE GATHERING ARE ALL FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
RESPONDENT DELFIN AND HIS VOLUNTEERS PER THEIR PROGRAM OF
ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURES SUBMITTED TO THE COMELEC. THE
ESTIMATED COST OF THE DAILY PER DIEM OF THE SUPERVISING SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN THE SIGNATURE GATHERING TO BE DEPOSITED and TO BE PAID
BY DELFIN AND HIS VOLUNTEERS IS P2,571,200.00;
3. THE PENDING PETITION BEFORE THE COMELEC IS ONLY ON THE SIGNATURE
GATHERING WHICH BY LAW COMELEC IS DUTY BOUND "TO SUPERVISE
CLOSELY" PURSUANT TO ITS "INITIATORY JURISDICTION" UPHELD BY THE
HONORABLE COURT IN ITS RECENT SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 DECISION IN THE CASE
OF SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY VS. COMELEC, ET AL. G.R. NO. 125416;
4. REP. ACT NO. 6735 APPROVED ON AUGUST 4, 1989 IS THE ENABLING LAW
IMPLEMENTING THE POWER OF PEOPLE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS
TO THE CONSTITUTION. SENATOR DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO'S SENATE BILL NO.
1290 IS A DUPLICATION OF WHAT ARE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN REP. ACT NO.
6735;
5. COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300 PROMULGATED ON JANUARY 16, 1991
PURSUANT TO REP. ACT 6735 WAS UPHELD BY THE HONORABLE COURT IN THE
RECENT SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUBIC BAY
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY VS. COMELEC, ET AL. G.R. NO. 125416 WHERE THE
HONORABLE COURT SAID: "THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CAN DO NO LESS
BY SEASONABLY AND JUDICIOUSLY PROMULGATING GUIDELINES AND RULES
FOR BOTH NATIONAL AND LOCAL USE, IN IMPLEMENTING OF THESE LAWS."
6. EVEN SENATOR DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO'S SENATE BILL NO. 1290 CONTAINS A
PROVISION DELEGATING TO THE COMELEC THE POWER TO "PROMULGATE SUCH
RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." (SEC. 12, S.B. NO. 1290, ENCLOSED AS ANNEX E,
PETITION);
7. THE LIFTING OF THE LIMITATION ON THE TERM OF OFFICE OF ELECTIVE
OFFICIALS PROVIDED UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IS NOT A "REVISION" OF
THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS ONLY AN AMENDMENT. "AMENDMENT ENVISAGES AN
ALTERATION OF ONE OR A FEW SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
REVISION CONTEMPLATES A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT TO
DETERMINE HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT IT SHOULD BE ALTERED." (PP. 412-
413, 2ND. ED. 1992, 1097 PHIL. CONSTITUTION, BY JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J.).
Also on 2 January 1997, private respondent Delfin filed in his own behalf a
Comment 16 which starts off with an assertion that the instant petition is a "knee-jerk
reaction to a draft 'Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution'. . . which is not
formally filed yet." What he filed on 6 December 1996 was an "Initiatory Pleading" or
"Initiatory Petition," which was legally necessary to start the signature campaign to
amend the Constitution or to put the movement to gather signatures under COMELEC
power and function. On the substantive allegations of the petitioners, Delfin maintains
as follows:
(1) Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, there is a law, R.A. No. 6735, which
governs the conduct of initiative to amend the Constitution. The absence
therein of a subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, since subtitles are not
requirements for the validity or sufficiency of laws.
(2) Section 9(b) of R.A. No. 6735 specifically provides that the proposition in
an initiative to amend the Constitution approved by the majority of the votes
cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as of the day of the plebiscite.
(3) The claim that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires is contradicted
by (a) Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, which grants the COMELEC the
power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall; and (b)
Section 20 of R.A. 6735, which empowers the COMELEC to promulgate such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.
(4) The proposed initiative does not involve a revision of, but
mere amendment to, the Constitution because it seeks to alter only a few
specific provisions of the Constitution, or more specifically, only those which
lay term limits. It does not seek to reexamine or overhaul the entire document.
As to the public expenditures for registration of voters, Delfin considers petitioners'
estimate of P180 million as unreliable, for only the COMELEC can give the exact figure.
Besides, if there will be a plebiscite it will be simultaneous with the 1997 Barangay
Elections. In any event, fund requirements for initiative will be a priority government
expense because it will be for the exercise of the sovereign power of the people.
In the Comment 17 for the public respondent COMELEC, filed also on 2 January 1997,
the Office of the Solicitor General contends that:
(1) R.A. No. 6735 deals with, inter alia, people's initiative to amend the
Constitution. Its Section 2 on Statement of Policy explicitly affirms, recognizes, and
guarantees that power; and its Section 3, which enumerates the three systems
of initiative, includes initiative on the Constitution and defines the same as the
power to propose amendments to the Constitution. Likewise, its Section 5
repeatedly mentions initiative on the Constitution.
(2) A separate subtitle on initiative on the Constitution is not necessary in R.A. No.
6735 because, being national in scope, that system of initiative is deemed included
in the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum; and Senator Tolentino
simply overlooked pertinent provisions of the law when he claimed that nothing
therein was provided for initiative on the Constitution.
(3) Senate Bill No. 1290 is neither a competent nor a material proof that R.A. No.
6735 does not deal with initiative on the Constitution.
(4) Extension of term limits of elected officials constitutes a mere amendment to
the Constitution, not a revision thereof.
(5) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was validly issued under Section 20 of R.A. No.
6735 and under the Omnibus Election Code. The rule-making power of the
COMELEC to implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6735 was in fact upheld by this
Court in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. COMELEC.
On 14 January 1997, this Court (a) confirmed nunc pro tunc the temporary restraining
order; (b) noted the aforementioned Comments and the Motion to Lift Temporary
Restraining Order filed by private respondents through Atty. Quadra, as well as the
latter's Manifestation stating that he is the counsel for private respondents Alberto and
Carmen Pedrosa only and the Comment he filed was for the Pedrosas; and (c) granted
the Motion for Intervention filed on 6 January 1997 by Senator Raul Roco and allowed
him to file his Petition in Intervention not later than 20 January 1997; and (d) set the
case for hearing on 23 January 1997 at 9:30 a.m.
On 17 January 1997, the Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK) and the
Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI), filed
a Motion for Intervention. Attached to the motion was their Petition in Intervention,
which was later replaced by an Amended Petition in Intervention wherein they contend
that:
(1) The Delfin proposal does not involve a mere amendment to, but a revision of,
the Constitution because, in the words of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., 18 it would
involve a change from a political philosophy that rejects unlimited tenure to one
that accepts unlimited tenure; and although the change might appear to be an
isolated one, it can affect other provisions, such as, on synchronization of
elections and on the State policy of guaranteeing equal access to opportunities
for public service and prohibiting political dynasties. 19 A revision cannot be
done by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Constitution, is limited to amendments.
(2) The prohibition against reelection of the President and the limits provided
for all other national and local elective officials are based on the philosophy of
governance, "to open up the political arena to as many as there are Filipinos
qualified to handle the demands of leadership, to break the concentration of
political and economic powers in the hands of a few, and to promote effective
proper empowerment for participation in policy and decision-making for the
common good"; hence, to remove the term limits is to negate and nullify the
noble vision of the 1987 Constitution.
(3) The Delfin proposal runs counter to the purpose of initiative, particularly in
a conflict-of-interest situation. Initiative is intended as a fallback position that
may be availed of by the people only if they are dissatisfied with the
performance of their elective officials, but not as a premium for good
performance. 20
(4) R.A. No. 6735 is deficient and inadequate in itself to be called the enabling
law that implements the people's initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
It fails to state (a) the proper parties who may file the petition, (b) the
appropriate agency before whom the petition is to be filed, (c) the contents of
the petition, (d) the publication of the same, (e) the ways and means of
gathering the signatures of the voters nationwide and 3% per legislative district,
(f) the proper parties who may oppose or question the veracity of the
signatures, (g) the role of the COMELEC in the verification of the signatures and
the sufficiency of the petition, (h) the appeal from any decision of the COMELEC,
(I) the holding of a plebiscite, and (g) the appropriation of funds for such
people's initiative. Accordingly, there being no enabling law, the COMELEC has
no jurisdiction to hear Delfin's petition.
 (5) The deficiency of R.A. No. 6735 cannot be rectified or remedied by COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300, since the COMELEC is without authority to legislate the
procedure for a people's initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Constitution. That function exclusively pertains to Congress. Section 20 of R.A.
No. 6735 does not constitute a legal basis for the Resolution, as the former does
not set a sufficient standard for a valid delegation of power.
On 20 January 1997, Senator Raul Roco filed his Petition in
Intervention. 21 He avers that R.A. No. 6735 is the enabling law that implements the
people's right to initiate constitutional amendments. This law is a consolidation of
Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505; he co-authored the House Bill and even
delivered a sponsorship speech thereon. He likewise submits that the COMELEC was
empowered under Section 20 of that law to promulgate COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.
Nevertheless, he contends that the respondent Commission is without jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the Delfin Petition and to order its publication because the said
petition is not the initiatory pleading contemplated under the Constitution, Republic
Act No. 6735, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. What vests jurisdiction upon the
COMELEC in an initiative on the Constitution is the filing of a petition for initiative
which is signed by the required number of registered voters. He also submits that the
proponents of a constitutional amendment cannot avail of the authority and resources
of the COMELEC to assist them is securing the required number of signatures, as the
COMELEC's role in an initiative on the Constitution is limited to the determination of
the sufficiency of the initiative petition and the call and supervision of a plebiscite, if
warranted.
On 20 January 1997, LABAN filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene.
The following day, the IBP filed a Motion for Intervention to which it attached a Petition
in Intervention raising the following arguments:
(1) Congress has failed to enact an enabling law mandated under Section 2,
Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute for the required
implementing law on the initiative to amend the Constitution.
(3) The Petition for Initiative suffers from a fatal defect in that it does not have
the required number of signatures.
(4) The petition seeks, in effect a revision of the Constitution, which can be
proposed only by Congress or a constitutional convention. 22
On 21 January 1997, we promulgated a Resolution (a) granting the Motions for
Intervention filed by the DIK and MABINI and by the IBP, as well as the Motion for
Leave to Intervene filed by LABAN; (b) admitting the Amended Petition in Intervention
of DIK and MABINI, and the Petitions in Intervention of Senator Roco and of the IBP; (c)
requiring the respondents to file within a nonextendible period of five days their
Consolidated Comments on the aforesaid Petitions in Intervention; and (d) requiring
LABAN to file its Petition in Intervention within a nonextendible period of three days
from notice, and the respondents to comment thereon within a nonextendible period of
five days from receipt of the said Petition in Intervention.
At the hearing of the case on 23 January 1997, the parties argued on the following
pivotal issues, which the Court formulated in light of the allegations and arguments
raised in the pleadings so far filed:
1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to include or
cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as
worded, adequately covers such initiative.
2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and
Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and
Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in
the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as
proposed in the draft "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," would
constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.
4. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a
petition solely intended to obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates for
signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin's
movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c) directing or
causing the publication of, inter alia, the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative
on the 1987 Constitution.
5. Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition
when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.
After hearing them on the issues, we required the parties to submit simultaneously
their respective memoranda within twenty days and requested intervenor Senator
Roco to submit copies of the deliberations on House Bill No. 21505.
On 27 January 1997, LABAN filed its Petition in Intervention wherein it adopts the
allegations and arguments in the main Petition. It further submits that the COMELEC
should have dismissed the Delfin Petition for failure to state a sufficient cause of action
and that the Commission's failure or refusal to do so constituted grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
On 28 January 1997, Senator Roco submitted copies of portions of both the Journal and
the Record of the House of Representatives relating to the deliberations of House Bill
No. 21505, as well as the transcripts of stenographic notes on the proceedings of the
Bicameral Conference Committee, Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, of 6
June 1989 on House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17.
Private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa filed their Consolidated Comments
on the Petitions in Intervention of Senator Roco, DIK and MABINI, and IBP. 23 The
parties thereafter filed, in due time, their separate memoranda. 24
As we stated in the beginning, we resolved to give due course to this special civil action.
For a more logical discussion of the formulated issues, we shall first take up the fifth
issue which appears to pose a prejudicial procedural question.
I corporation, board, or person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial,
THE INSTANT PETITION IS VIABLE DESPITE THE PENDENCY IN THE
COMELEC OF THE DELFIN PETITION.
Except for the petitioners and intervenor Roco, the parties paid no serious attention to
the fifth issue, i.e., whether it is proper for this Court to take cognizance of this special
civil action when there is a pending case before the COMELEC. The petitioners provide
an affirmative answer. Thus:
28. The Comelec has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition filed by
private respondent Delfin. This being so, it becomes imperative to stop the Comelec
from proceeding any further, and under the Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 2, a
petition for prohibition is the proper remedy.
29. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary judicial writ issuing out of a court of
superior jurisdiction and directed to an inferior court, for the purpose of
preventing the inferior tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction with which it is not
legally vested. (People v. Vera, supra., p. 84). In this case the writ is an urgent
necessity, in view of the highly divisive and adverse environmental consequences
on the body politic of the questioned Comelec order. The consequent climate of
legal confusion and political instability begs for judicial statesmanship.
30. In the final analysis, when the system of constitutional law is threatened by the
political ambitions of man, only the Supreme Court
can save a nation in peril and uphold the paramount majesty of the Constitution. 25
It must be recalled that intervenor Roco filed with the COMELEC a motion to dismiss
the Delfin Petition on the ground that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction or authority to
entertain the petition. 26 The COMELEC made no ruling thereon evidently because after
having heard the arguments of Delfin and the oppositors at the hearing on 12
December 1996, it required them to submit within five days their memoranda or
oppositions/memoranda. 27 Earlier, or specifically on 6 December 1996, it practically
gave due course to the Delfin Petition by ordering Delfin to cause the publication of the
petition, together with the attached Petition for Initiative, the signature form, and the
notice of hearing; and by setting the case for hearing. The COMELEC's failure to act on
Roco's motion to dismiss and its insistence to hold on to the petition rendered ripe and
viable the instant petition under Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. — Where the proceedings of any tribunal,
are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion,
and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified therein.
It must also be noted that intervenor Roco claims that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction
over the Delfin Petition because the said petition is not supported by the required
minimum number of signatures of registered voters. LABAN also asserts that the
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the Delfin Petition, which
does not contain the required number of signatures. In light of these claims, the instant
case may likewise be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Section I of
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In any event, as correctly pointed out by intervenor Roco in his Memorandum, this
Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure in
cases of transcendental importance. As we stated in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr. 28
A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it
may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of
 issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court brushed
aside this technicality because the transcendental importance to the public
of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely,
brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.
II
R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS, UNFORTUNATELY,
INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM.
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
This provision is not self-executory. In his book, 29 Joaquin Bernas, a member of the
1986 Constitutional Commission, stated:
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. Thus,
although this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of
amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it
still is dependent on congressional action.
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the
cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation.
Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has recognized or granted that right,
the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide
for its implementation.
This system of initiative was originally included in Section 1 of the draft Article on
Amendment or Revision proposed by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory
Provisions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in its Committee Report No. 7
(Proposed Resolution No. 332). 30 That section reads as follows:
Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed:
(a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members; or
(b) by a constitutional convention; or
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in
Article___ Section ___of the Constitution. 31
After several interpellations, but before the period of amendments, the
Committee submitted a new formulation of the concept of initiative which it
denominated as Section 2; thus:
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President. May we
respectfully call attention of the Members of the
Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us
last night, we submitted this afternoon a complete
Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the
proposed provision governing the matter of initiative.
This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete
committee report. With the permission of the
Members, may I quote Section 2:
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite
held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative
upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report
No. 7. 32
The interpellations on Section 2 showed that the details for carrying out Section 2 are
left to the legislature. Thus:
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, just two simple,
clarificatory questions.
First, on Section 1 on the matter of initiative upon
petition of at least 10 percent, there are no details in
the provision on how to carry this out. Do we
understand, therefore, that we are leaving this matter
to the legislature?
 MR. SUAREZ. That is right, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. And do we also understand, therefore,
that for as long as the legislature does not pass the
necessary implementing law on this, this will not
operate?
MR. SUAREZ. That matter was also taken up during
the committee hearing, especially with respect to the
budget appropriations which would have to be
legislated so that the plebiscite could be called. We
deemed it best that this matter be left to the
legislature. The Gentleman is right. In any event, as
envisioned, no amendment through the power of
initiative can be called until after five years from the
date of the ratification of this Constitution. Therefore,
the first amendment that could be proposed through
the exercise of this initiative power would be after
five years. It is reasonably expected that within that
five-year period, the National Assembly can come up
with the appropriate rules governing the exercise of
this power.
FR. BERNAS. Since the matter is left to the legislature
— the details on how this is to be carried out — is it
possible that, in effect, what will be presented to the
people for ratification is the work of the legislature
rather than of the people? Does this provision exclude
that possibility?
MR. SUAREZ. No, it does not exclude that possibility
because even the legislature itself as a body could
propose that amendment, maybe individually or
collectively, if it fails to muster the three-fourths vote
in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly
and submit that proposal to the people for ratification
through the process of an initiative.
xxx xxx xxx
MS. AQUINO. Do I understand from the sponsor that
the intention in the proposal is to vest constituent
power in the people to amend the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ. That is absolutely correct, Madam
President.
MS. AQUINO. I fully concur with the underlying
precept of the proposal in terms of institutionalizing
popular participation in the drafting of the
Constitution or in the amendment thereof, but I
would have a lot of difficulties in terms of accepting
the draft of Section 2, as written. Would the sponsor
agree with me that in the hierarchy of legal mandate,
constituent power has primacy over all other legal
mandates?
MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner is right, Madam
President.
MS. AQUINO. And would the sponsor agree with me
that in the hierarchy of legal values, the Constitution
is source of all legal mandates and that therefore we
require a great deal of circumspection in the drafting
and in the amendments of the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ. That proposition is nondebatable.
MS. AQUINO. Such that in order to underscore the
primacy of constituent power we have a separate
article in the constitution that would specifically
cover the process and the modes of amending the
Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ. That is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO. Therefore, is the sponsor inclined, as the
provisions are drafted now, to again concede to the
legislature the process or the requirement of
determining the mechanics of amending the
Constitution by people's initiative?
MR. SUAREZ. The matter of implementing this could
very well be placed in the hands of the National
Assembly, not unless we can incorporate into this
provision the mechanics that would adequately cover
all the conceivable situations. 33
It was made clear during the interpellations that the aforementioned Section 2 is MR. DAVIDE. Thank you Madam President. I propose
limited to proposals to AMEND — not to REVISE — the Constitution; thus: to substitute the entire Section 2 with the following:

MR. SUAREZ. . . . This proposal was suggested on the MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I have modified the
theory that this matter of initiative, which came about proposed amendment after taking into account the
because of the extraordinary developments this year, modifications submitted by the sponsor himself and
has to be separated from the traditional modes of the honorable Commissioners Guingona, Monsod,
amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. Rama, Ople, de los Reyes and Romulo. The modified
The committee members felt that this system of amendment in substitution of the proposed Section 2
initiative should not extend to the revision of the entire will now read as follows: "SECTION 2. —
Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY
Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE
Revision. 34 THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF AT
LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
xxx xxx xxx Of REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY
MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED
by providing this process of initiative as a separate VOTERS THEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS
section in the Article on Amendment. Would the SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE
sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS
terms of realigning Section 2 as another CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY
subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
as another separate section as if it were a self-
executing provision? THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF
MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as THIS RIGHT.
we clarified a while ago, this process of initiative is
limited to the matter of amendment and should not MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, considering that the
expand into a revision which contemplates a total proposed amendment is reflective of the sense
overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that contained in Section 2 of our completed Committee
was conveyed by the Committee. Report No. 7, we accept the proposed amendment. 36

MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was The interpellations which ensued on the proposed modified amendment to Section 2
attempting to distinguish the coverage of modes (a) clearly showed that it was a legislative act which must implement the exercise of the
and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of revision; right. Thus:
whereas the process of initiation to amend, which is
given to the public, would only apply to amendments? MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's
amendment, is it possible for the legislature to set
MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms forth certain procedures to carry out the initiative. . .?
envisioned in the Committee. 35
MR. DAVIDE. It can.
Amendments to the proposed Section 2 were thereafter introduced by then
Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which the Committee accepted. Thus: xxx xxx xxx
 MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment
does not prevent the legislature from asking another
body to set the proposition in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE. The Commissioner is correct. In other
words, the implementation of this particular right
would be subject to legislation, provided the
legislature cannot determine anymore the percentage
of the requirement.
MR. ROMULO. But the procedures, including the
determination of the proper form for submission to the
people, may be subject to legislation.
MR. DAVIDE. As long as it will not destroy the
substantive right to initiate. In other words, none of
the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body
must diminish or impair the right conceded here.
MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the
Constitution can the procedures which I have discussed
be legislated?
MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 37
Commissioner Davide also reaffirmed that his modified amendment strictly
confines initiative to AMENDMENTS to — NOT REVISION of — the Constitution. Thus:
MR. DAVIDE. With pleasure, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner
Davide's proposed amendment on line 1 refers to
"amendment." Does it not cover the word "revision"
as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made
the distinction between the words "amendments" and
"revision"?
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments"
and "revision" should be covered by Section 1. So
insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only relate to
"amendments" not "revision." 38
Commissioner Davide further emphasized that the process of proposing amendments
through initiative must be more rigorous and difficult than the initiative on legislation.
Thus:
MR. DAVIDE. A distinction has to be made that under
this proposal, what is involved is an amendment to
the Constitution. To amend a Constitution would
ordinarily require a proposal by the National
Assembly by a vote of three-fourths; and to call a
constitutional convention would require a higher
number. Moreover, just to submit the issue of calling
a constitutional convention, a majority of the National
Assembly is required, the import being that the
process of amendment must be made more rigorous
and difficult than probably initiating an ordinary
legislation or putting an end to a law proposed by the
National Assembly by way of a referendum. I cannot
agree to reducing the requirement approved by the
Committee on the Legislative because it would
require another voting by the Committee, and the
voting as precisely based on a requirement of 10
percent. Perhaps, I might present such a proposal, by
way of an amendment, when the Commission shall
take up the Article on the Legislative or on the
National Assembly on plenary sessions. 39
The Davide modified amendments to Section 2 were subjected to amendments, and the
final version, which the Commission approved by a vote of 31 in favor and 3 against,
reads as follows:
MR. DAVIDE. Thank you Madam President. Section 2,
as amended, reads as follows: "AMENDMENT TO
THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY
PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE
UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT
OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS,
OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE
REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF
THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO
AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE
AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE
RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR
OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS
THEREAFTER.
 THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF
THIS RIGHT. 40
The entire proposed Article on Amendments or Revisions was approved on
second reading on 9 July 1986. 41Thereafter, upon his motion for
reconsideration, Commissioner Gascon was allowed to introduce an
amendment to Section 2 which, nevertheless, was withdrawn. In view thereof,
the Article was again approved on Second and Third Readings on 1 August
1986. 42
However, the Committee on Style recommended that the approved Section 2 be
amended by changing "percent" to "per centum" and "thereof" to "therein" and deleting
the phrase "by law" in the second paragraph so that said paragraph reads: The
Congress 43 shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 44 This
amendment was approved and is the text of the present second paragraph of Section 2.
The conclusion then is inevitable that, indeed, the system of initiative on the
Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory.
Has Congress "provided" for the implementation of the exercise of this right? Those
who answer the question in the affirmative, like the private respondents and intervenor
Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No. 6735.
There is, of course, no other better way for Congress to implement the exercise of the
right than through the passage of a statute or legislative act. This is the essence or
rationale of the last minute amendment by the Constitutional Commission to substitute
the last paragraph of Section 2 of Article XVII then reading:
The Congress 45 shall by law provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
with
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right.
This substitute amendment was an investiture on Congress of a power to
provide for the rules implementing the exercise of the right. The "rules" means
"the details on how [the right] is to be carried out." 46
We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is a consolidation of House Bill No.
21505 and Senate Bill No. 17. The former was prepared by the Committee on Suffrage
and Electoral Reforms of the House of Representatives on the basis of two House Bills
referred to it, viz., (a) House Bill No. 497, 47 which dealt with the initiative and
referendum mentioned
in Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution; and (b) House Bill No.
988, 48 which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. 497, as well as with
initiative and referendum under Section 3 of Article X (Local Government) and
initiative provided for in Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution. Senate Bill No.
17 49 solely dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or resolutions
of local government units. The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate
Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently approved
on 8 June 1989 by the Senate 50 and by the House of Representatives. 51 This approved
bill is now R.A. No. 6735.
But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to "provide
for the implementation of the exercise of the right?"
A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer.
First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act
does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The said section
reads:
Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. — The power of the people under a
system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact,
approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws,
ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon
compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed. (Emphasis supplied).
The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought.
That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively
relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws,
ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on the
Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined
only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to
"directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution"
through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws,
ordinances, or resolutions."
The foregoing conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that this section was lifted
from Section 1 of Senate Bill No. 17, which solely referred to a statement of policy on
local initiative and referendum and appropriately used the phrases "propose and
enact," "approve or reject" and "in whole or in part." 52
Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act defines initiative on
amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of the three systems
of initiative, and that Section 5 (Requirements) restates the constitutional requirements
as to the percentage of the registered voters who must submit the proposal. But unlike
in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of
a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Section 5, paragraph (c) requires, among
other things, statement of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected,
amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, as among the contents of
the petition, the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of
initiative on the Constitution. Said paragraph (c) reads in full as follows:
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1 contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved
or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
c.2 the proposition;
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor;
c.4 that it is not one of the exceptions provided therein;
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
c.6 an abstract or summary proposition is not more than one hundred
(100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of
every page of the petition. (Emphasis supplied).
The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or
rejected, amended or repealed" only strengthens the conclusion that Section 2,
quoted earlier, excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle
II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided
for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means
that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If
Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of
the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle
therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of
values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far
more important than the initiative on national and local laws.
We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is
national in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National Initiative and Referendum) and
Subtitle III (Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves no room for doubt that the
classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on
its nature and character. It is "national initiative," if what is proposed to be adopted or
enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can pass. It is "local initiative" if
what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or resolution which only
the legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays can pass. This classification of initiative
into national and local is actually based on Section 3 of the Act, which we quote for
emphasis and clearer understanding:
Sec. 3. Definition of terms —
xxx xxx xxx
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing
amendments to the Constitution;
a.2 Initiative on Statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact
a national legislation; and
a.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to
enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance. (Emphasis supplied).
Hence, to complete the classification under subtitles there should have been a subtitle
on initiative on amendments to the Constitution. 53
A further examination of the Act even reveals that the subtitling is not accurate.
Provisions not germane to the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum are
placed therein, like (1) paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 9, which reads:
 (b) The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by
the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as
to the day of the plebiscite.
(c) A national or local initiative proposition approved by majority of
the votes cast in an election called for the purpose shall become
effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation of the
Commission. (Emphasis supplied).
(2) that portion of Section 11 (Indirect Initiative) referring to indirect initiative with
the legislative bodies of local governments; thus:
Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. — Any duly accredited people's
organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect
initiative with the House of Representatives, and other legislative
bodies. . . .
and (3) Section 12 on Appeal, since it applies to decisions of the COMELEC on
the findings of sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or
referendum, which could be petitions for both national and local initiative and
referendum.
Upon the other hand, Section 18 on "Authority of Courts" under subtitle III on Local
Initiative and Referendum is misplaced, 54 since the provision therein applies to both
national and local initiative and referendum. It reads:
Sec. 18. Authority of Courts. — Nothing in this Act shall prevent or
preclude the proper courts from declaring null and void any
proposition approved pursuant to this Act for violation of the
Constitution or want of capacity of the local legislative body to enact
the said measure.
Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for
the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum on national and local
legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to do so
on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Anent the initiative on
national legislation, the Act provides for the following:
(a) The required percentage of registered voters to sign the petition and the contents of
the petition;
(b) The conduct and date of the initiative;
(c) The submission to the electorate of the proposition and the required number of
votes for its approval;
(d) The certification by the COMELEC of the approval of the proposition;
(e) The publication of the approved proposition in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; and
(f) The effects of the approval or rejection of the proposition. 55
As regards local initiative, the Act provides for the following:
(a) The preliminary requirement as to the number of signatures of registered voters for
the petition;
(b) The submission of the petition to the local legislative body concerned;
(c) The effect of the legislative body's failure to favorably act thereon, and the
invocation of the power of initiative as a consequence thereof;
(d) The formulation of the proposition;
(e) The period within which to gather the signatures;
(f) The persons before whom the petition shall be signed;
(g) The issuance of a certification by the COMELEC through its official in the local
government unit concerned as to whether the required number of signatures have been
obtained;
(h) The setting of a date by the COMELEC for the submission of the proposition to the
registered voters for their approval, which must be within the period specified therein;
(i) The issuance of a certification of the result;
(j) The date of effectivity of the approved proposition;
(k) The limitations on local initiative; and
(l) The limitations upon local legislative bodies. 56
Upon the other hand, as to initiative on amendments to the Constitution, R.A. No. 6735,
in all of its twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, the word "Constitution" in
Section 2; (b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration
of the three systems of initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by
which the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected
by the people; (d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters
who should sign the petition; and (e) provides for the date of effectivity of the approved
proposition.
There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount
system of initiative. RA. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip
service. 57
The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate,
or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by "empowering" the COMELEC "to promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act. 58
The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin
maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest. 59 The recognized exceptions to the rule
are as follows:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23(2) of Article VI
of the Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies. 60
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions,
to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority
under no. 5 above. However, in every case of permissible delegation, there must be a
showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in
itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate; and (b) fixes a standard — the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
determinable — to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. 61 A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its
limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates
the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. 62
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No.
6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The
delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
III
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES AND
REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION, IS VOID.
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations
to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A.
No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those
promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or
(b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the
"completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.
IV
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.
Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735 is a full compliance with the power of
Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has
validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a
petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least
3% of the registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of
the required number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered
signatures and that the purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his
drive to gather signatures. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be
deemed validly initiated.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. The
petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the
COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel
before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; 63 (2) to
issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number
of registered voters in each legislative district; 64 (3) to assist, through its election
registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; 65 and (4) to verify, through its
election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters'
affidavits, and voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding election. 66
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC.
The respondent Commission must have known that the petition does not fall under any
of the actions or proceedings under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under
Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it did not assign to the petition a docket number.
Hence, the said petition was merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition
was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by
the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order
directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda or oppositions. In so
dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
and merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient standard for
subordinate legislation;
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission on Elections
prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the
Constitution; and
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN petition
(UND-96-037).
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made permanent as
against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as against private respondents.
Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan, Hermosisima, Jr. and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.

The foregoing considered, further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to lift Padilla, J., took no part.
the term limits of elective national and local officials is an amendment to, and not
a revision of, the Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.

CONCLUSION

This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to
the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
implementation of the system.

We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the

Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and blood,
energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the
constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the right of the people
under that system.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

a) GRANTING the instant petition;